/lit/ - Literature

>stirner thread

ahhhhh, I am home.
Time to kick back, relax, and forget the spooks of the world.

Honest to god I wish I didn't keep forgetting about spooks in my day to day life. They grow so big they take up all my thoughts. I worry about school and money and job and women and health and family and blah blah blah who fucking cares, they are all spooks.

I need to free up more of my attention for what I really want to do, which is appreciate beauty and read some more historical fiction. Thanks bra.

P.S. Pic related, OC I made

do Stirnirists all have a mental illness? or is that a spook too? what the fuck are you even talking about? this isn't even philosophy.

>>5121368

Mental illness is bullshit, outside of cases where you have serious anatomical deformities...e.g. tumors and strokes.

In most cases mental illness is just some asshat fomally saying he dislikes your personality.

>>5121368

>do Stirnirists all have a mental illness?

Most Stirnerists are deeply insecure people.

And most Stirnerists who read this will think that of course in no way includes them.

>>5121368
Read Stirner before you talk shit, boyim.

>>5121363
>health
>a spook

Tippity top lel

This *is* a parody thread btw.

>>5121960
You're so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

>>5121990
>believing in stupidity
>believing in anything

>>5121990
>I only know that i know nothing.

>>5122007

>believing in an abstention of belief

>>5121960
Thanks for letting us all know. I probably would have seriously tried to have a deep, philosophical conversation about Max Stirner if you hadn't given me that heads up. I just want you to know that I appreciate what you've done for the board, and I'm rooting for you.

>>5122058
Some newbs just wouldn't know.

I prefer Junger to Stirner, he's not such a prick about it.

>>5122302
>he's not such a prick about it.
So are you still under the impression that Stirner was a jackass prick for not believing is fake things?

And you prefer a nationalist war idolizer?

>>5122331

>So are you still under the impression that Stirner was a jackass prick for not believing is fake things?

Let me establish bias in a question and ask it to you as though I'm not doing it?

>>5122058
I'm one of the serious Stirnerfags here. I don't have my powerlevel photo of secondary lit on Stirner with me right now to prove it, but hit me if you have some specific comment/question.

What''s a spook?

>>5122331
>has never even read stirner

>>5122354
"Essence" or metaphysics. God, spirit, honor, valor, etc.

>>5122373
No, I haven't. How sad that I know more than you.

>>5122427
This is ridiculous. What the fuck is wrong with this bitch? Real people cannot act like this.

But I want a reciprocal shared relationship with my gf, rather than "you are my property WHORE"

>>5121363
I like the pic, got any more

>>5122427
>>5122873
I have a theory that she is just some bot that feminister wrote and paid for a 4chan pass to automate. Her replies seem to be barely relevant, and she doesn't have a lot of knowledge about anything but she defends fmnstr as if _her life depended on it_. Coincidence?

>>5122880
Don't talk about what you don't understand.

>>5122889
Or what?

>>5122343
What's the point of Stirner's philosophy? I get the idea of spooks and I'm sure everyone who's thought about life/whatever comes to a similar conclusion. Where do you go from here? Live your life and not care about anything? I don't think so. Seems kind of pointless to me.

>>5122880
I don't know who you're quoting there, but it isn't Stirner. If you were both egoists (not egotists) you'd be in a reciprocal shared relationship.

>>5122873
>>5122883
>replies seem to be barely relevant,
I know this is a troll thread, but why so irrelevant all the time?

Yeah, I know I don't know everything, I just do my best with what I do know. I'm not here trying to spread false info like a lot of you.

>>5123039
As I see it it's an sort of an extension of Epicureanism. In the Do what you want/only consider real things, sense. It's not about not caring about anything but disregarding things that are phony, hence the Holden Caulfield-Stiner pic.
"Seems kind of pointless to me" Just because there's no reason for life, doesn't mean there's no point in living a good life. You live for yourself, but since you live with al these others ("Hell" to some philosophical strain) you should try to find a way to make peace with that...

>>5121416
Sadly true, that many people find it difficult to acknowledge their own shortcomings as their own property, and so cannot overcome it.

Hello stirnerfriends, where do I begin with based Stirner?

>>5123166
Ego and It's Own

>>5123113
It's mind-boggling that someone could talk as if they know about something when they don't know shit. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Spooks aren't "phony" you dumb cunt, they're fixed ideas that one places higher than oneself. So the point of getting rid of spooks isn't to be "genuine", you stupid piece of shit, it's to stop obeying external influences that in reality don't exist, and instead live for oneself, instead of these fixed ideas (spooks).

There's nothing more to the Stirner/Holden picture than "lel they both smoke"

This is so absurd, fucking Butterfly, what the fuck. "I haven't read Stirner but I read feminister posts so I basically know what it is." You deserve to die.

>>5123113
I keep reading this post and it just makes me angrier. To think that this is what Butterfly thinks Stirner is, to think that fuckhead has the gall to go around saying this is Stirner..

Fuck, I'm gonna screencap and spam feminister to show her what she's done. I know that would piss you off, to have your fucking Idol know you don't know shit about her fave maymay. This is so far off the mark it's ridiculous.

>>5123220
...impressively retarded and crying post.

Stirner: "Nah, god's not real bros, there is no morality."
OK, dude! Wait - why is this dude so famous?

>>5123289
Fuck off, you don't know shit

>>5123304
Nah, I do. I know that you're a dumb bitch, for example.

"I cannot BELIEVE... butterfly just said that about Stirner. That he's like, 'don't believe in god' . . .That's wrong. What he actually said was, 'don't believe in god.'"

>>5123166

I'd start with wikipedia/various sites/lit

Then work your way towards Ego and It's Own. It's too poorly written to just jump right in, despite Stirner being the best philosopher of all time.

>>5123308
Oh great it's the bitch guy. I find it funny that you saying bitch so much only shows how much of a bitch you are, you bitch. How do you like that bitch?

Do me a favor and get a tripfag so I can filter you, bitch.

>>5123220
there is no single correct description, or rather an area of understanding, that everyone should find themselves after reading through someone else's philosophy, but it probably occurs just as often from accepting the heldfast interpretations of others. you shouldn't be all that concerned with how he understands stirner, assuming he read his works and formed the opinions entirely on his own, it is a different view, but not as offpath as you make it out.

>>5123356
Tut tut, and you fall to ad hominem. I'm embarrassed for you, anon.

>>5123360

>people arguing about definition of spooks

Shit tier Stirner discussion topic.

>>5123321
>extension of epicureanism
>"hell" to some philosophical strain
>try to find a way to make peace with that

All of this is flat out wrong. Stop dropping your trip and defending yourself Butterfly, it's pathetic. Read Stirner or just leave Stirner threads alone.

>>5123360
She hasn't read Stirner.

>>5123367
Who gives a fuck? And it is pretty much completely Epicureanism, by the way.

"Stirner says I don't have to care about you, I love him!"
Wait, what? lol

I wonder was it the reference to hell that set the dumb anons fuming, actually.

>>5123372
>this is wrong, who gives a fuck?
W-what?

>>5123412
Stirner is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever, anon. At most, he grants some selfish children some existential comfort, but for the most part they're squeamish anyway, so it's OK.

I imagine the Stirnerists as little babies crying, "mine!" almost cutesy, whilst everyone else gets on with actually managing the world.

>>5123506
>Managing the world

Delusional STEM fag detected

>m-muh bridges
>m-muh cancer cure

>>5123524
While I do have two engineering degrees, anon (or pretty much anyway), I'm actually much more interested in politics and philosophy -- I was merely remarking upon the fact that Stirner has no worth but to cry along with crying children thus making them feel better.

Oh, and essences are most certainly things in that they are the controls by which you move people. In fact, Stirner even preaches a certain essence -- the egoistic self -- though it is of very little use to anyone.

"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."

Stirner is just cry. Christianity is god-tier fighting fire with fire.

>>5123594
Only belief in essences exist

>>5123594
Stirner's self is not an idea, he equates the self with the body.

>>5123667
>>5123678
Rubbish. Leave your crybaby existential justifications at home, kiddies.

Marx actually fucking nailed Stirner with his "petit bourgeois."

>>5123763
In fact, I consider Stirner's philosophy as an answer for existentialism. There's of course a huge narcissistic flavor on his text, but it's an interesting read anyway. I don't get why people say it's badly written, maybe it's a shitty translation (in Spanish is quite nice).

>>5123491
>consequence
Consequence of what, pray tell?

>>5123328
Woah man, sorry that Zach de la Rocha and Shadow the Hedgehog didn't pop in for some 2edgy incoherent anti-statist raging. How dare some people want to express their anarchism in a way that edgy 16-year-olds would find uninteresting.

>>5121398
Can you give examples? Does that mean autism is in tumor category or made up to be a problem like sociopaths or bipolars?

>>5123848
In this grand ordering referred to as "society," anon. He but gives justification, sort of like how Satan might, of that utter child which is everyone's base. The thing is, though, it doesn't belong in the political arena, only at home as a lullaby for the children.

>>5122898
I like you now

>>5123328
This is the correct version

>>5124070
now that's the coolest autofellatio sculpture I have seen all week. Is it a modern work?

>>5123963
Start with the obvious: the fact that all psychological conditions are a diagnosis of symptoms. There is no gene that runs a file called autism.exe in your brain; rather, there are accredited doctors who are paid to look at how you act and say "Because you act in these ways, we conclude that your mental state can be described as autism."

Now that you have been diagnosed with autism, the rest of your life will be determined by the parameters implicit in your new social position. Every time your name is mentioned, it will not be as "Anon" but as "Anon (autist)." One consequence will be that everything you do will be qualified as an autistic accomplishment ("He tied his shoes" / "He tied his shoes, even though he as autism"), the other consequence is that your transgressions have been excused by your being classified as an exception to normality ("He's such a racist! Someone should talk to him!" / "He's a racist, probably because he's autistic, oh well")

>>5124158
Wait so autistic brains look the same as normal ones? If that is the case, I would agree it is just head niggers saying that "this behaviour is disagreeable"

>>5124199
1. What is a "normal" brain, when brains of musicians, marijuana users, and alcoholics (or any combination of those three) look completely different?
2. What percentage of children diagnosed with autism (to say nothing of the significant number of people who self-diagnose) are given brain scans before their condition is determined?

>>5123991
So he wiped away spooks and is thus inconsequential when viewed through the spooky lens.

Guess spooks exist then.

>>5124245
Not him, but to further expound on this: there is no "normal" brain. Normal is an abstraction that does not exist in the real world.

Did Stirner hate Jews?

>>5124401
He had roughly the same opinion about them as Nietzsche, with a stronger pro-Christian bias than Nietzsche did. Stirner spends much of The Ego And Its Own telling you why egoism makes Christians so perfect and brilliant, usually by comparing them to what the jews are doing differently, but he doesn't actually blame attribute any conspiracies or evils to jews

>>5124454
Thank you for explaining it.
I wasn't quite sure how to interpret this:

>If I had before me Jews, Jews of the true metal, I should have to stop here and leave them standing before this mystery as for almost two thousand years they have remained standing before it, unbelieving and without knowledge. But, as you, my dear reader, are at least not a full-blooded Jew - for such a one will not go astray as far as this - we will still go along a bit of road together, until perhaps you too turn your back on me because I laugh in your face.

>>5124331
He didn't wipe away spooks, he cried about there being no god, that it's wrong to force us to be some sort of good, etc. --basically, he was retarded, and Stirnerists should shut the fuck up and keep their snivelling to themselves.

>>5124718
>m-muh spooks!
>you're retarded for not obeying unreal entities!
Nah, you're the one who sounds like a sniveling fuckwit. Keep bowing down to "good" or "god" or "society" though, certainly makes my life easier.

>>5124454
How the hell did you read that Stirner thought Christians were perfect and brilliant? He says they're further along than the Ancients, but he then goes on to say that they're absurd for making God a fixed idea as well. He even has whole lines about how shitty Christianity is to the Egoist.

What the fuck.

>>5124797
Oh, that's clever, anon. How, though, pray tell, does it make your life easier?

"Haha, the guy said there was no god, dude is the best philosopher ever!"
Oh, but in the meantime, it's actually good that some people believe in god? Hmm. Must be Stirner provides a nice shoulder to cry on?

>>5124971
And Q.E.Fucking.D.

>>5123039
Pointless. As in purposeless?
As in, without being assigned an aim?
If life without being assigned aims bothers you, then why not aim for things in life?

>>5124971
Obviously my life is easier if other people are ruled by abstract spooks, as they're too busy restraining themselves while I'm free from such fetters. It gives me an advantage to deal with people who have morals when I don't believe in morality, for they chain themselves to "right" and "wrong" (which don't exist either, by the way) while I am free.

I don't care to change the world or force others to live my way. All I know is I am free to do as I please. My only constraints are my pleasures and reality. Thus I can exert my power over more things if others deny themselves that exertion because of ethereal spooks. Though the world is and will always be my property, this doesn't mean that I have the POWER to use it as I will without recourse.

99% of people already live the Stirnerian lifestyle without ever needing to have heard of him.

>>5125280

>MILK
>BREASTS
>SELLING MILK
>STIRNERIAN
>NOT STIRNERIST

MILK

MILK

>>5125123
Because I don't know what to aim for and need external influences to tell me how I should live! Everyone does!

The biggest thing I got from this book is that morals and ideologies exist to serve you, not vice versa.

Following Christianity or being a humanitarian is great if it helps you get along in life, but if you let the concepts dictate your life, you're making things harder for yourself than you need to. In the end just do what makes you happy.

>>5125524
Bingo.

I'm seriously considering to order Stirner's book for 12 euros.

>>5125547
Just do it. Best case scenario you're freed from spooks, and worst case scenario you can form your own opinion on Stirner instead of relying on the shit flinging that passes as explanation on /lit/.

Thinking you know about a book just because you've read threads about the book is utterly retarded. It takes a special kind of idiot to be so asinine.

>>5125261
Wow, that's some impressive delusion ya got there buddy

>>5125547
which one?

>>5125583
http://www.amazon.de/Der-Einzige-sein-Eigentum-Stirner/dp/3150030579/

>>5121398
>Mental illness is bullshit

sure buddy

>>5121398

what about fucking schizophrenia then?

>>5124070
>you will never own that statue and rest your cigarette in its anus

>>5125301
Not sure if sarcastic.
An artist does not need to be told to make things and shape the world. Perhaps you're just a shitty artist, whose creative vision consists mostly of keeping clean and not having your possessions lie on the floor.

>>5123991

ugh this post is just full of fucking spooks

>yfw stirner is literally 19th century white German Jaden Smith

>>5121398
>actual brain scans showing a brain suffering from mental illness producing abnormal readings other than that of a brain not suffering from mental illness is bullshit
>literal proof is bullshit

>>>/pol/

>>5125884
I think the first anon isn't quite there with his wording. These mental illnesses exist, but are inherently referred to negatively. This implies a normative mind, which does not exist.

>>5125941

But autism....it definitely heightens the human ability to reason, to posit, to problem-solve, blablablabla, but it curtails the human ability to socialise, which is a big part of the human sentience, at a base level.

I'm not saying that this necessarily means it is negative, but that it functions in a way that spars with the human norm - not the norm of the human mind, the normative mind, as you said, does not exist, but the norm of the human social entity, and how it exactly slots into the wider web of human interactions and life.

>>5125576
How is it delusional buddy?

>>5126065
The norm of the human social entity is also an abstraction and does not exist. Here's a hint: nothing that does not actually exist actually exists.

Why does one need to "[slot] into the wider web of human interactions and life"?

>>5125280
>confusing narcissism with egoism

>>5126079
Whatever the reason, attention, genuine animosity to Stirner, trolls are driven to make these acidic empty remarks at the most sensible helpful posts, which that one was imo.

I know I fall off the wagon, but it's bet to ignore them. He has nothing to add to the conversation, or else he would have included at least a little bit in that post.

>>5123579

You have autism if you think your engineering degrees or interest in politics and philosophy mean anything here.

You are incredibly generic and boring.

>>5124962

Life is easier as a slave, as you well know. Your only outlet is to attack free people here.

It's easier for you to serve your spooks, probably a STEM degree, being a little anti-racist bitch, voting, etc. Just a general all around weenie.

>>5126136
You sound a little spooked yourself anon, I hope those are serving you

>>5126083

>Why does one need to "[slot] into the wider web of human interactions and life"?

You're right, one does not, not any more.

But in a more basal human state, occupying a society was important for solidarity

>>5125567
>Thinking you know about a book just because you've read threads about the book is utterly retarded. It takes a special kind of idiot to be so asinine.

Spooky comment there. I'd be careful.

>>5126136
>being a little anti-racist bitch
Excuse me?
Racism is a result of a spook in your thinking. Hope you can lose that baggage sometime.

>>5126169
Believing that there is no genetic differences between race is literally a social construct, you nonsensical retard.

>>5126162
That's not him being spooky. If you only read 4chin threads about the book then you only know how people view the book. He knows nothing about the book other than what people tell him.

People have more faith in those who have studied the source for good reason, not some spook.

>>5126169

All my college professors can't be wrong...hehe

Camus was better anyway

>>5126169
You haven't even read The Ego And Its Own. Stop posturing, feminister won't let you suck on her cunt just because you half heartedly repeat some things you heard.

>>5126175
There is obviously physical differences between EVERY-ONE. The spook of racism is the fear, distrust, and general irrational pre-judgment of a given group. It's foolish to judge a persons character too early. DUH.

>>5126282
I've never claimed to know more than what I pass on and in some cases guess at. I am recognizable of course. Anons who haven't read the book started this thread in order to discredit the author.

>>5126182
That's a different species. Your notes must be wrong.

>>5126340

Why are spooks inherently bad again?

>>5126366
>I posted it again, mommy
Why are you still peeking at me, anon?

>>5126367
They're not, the OP is being silly/facetious.
I think this anon summed it up nicely.
>>5125524

>>5126367
Because living your life for the cause of something other than what you yourself have thought up is bad: bad because you are no longer living your life for yourself.

Remember: spook = fixed idea. By "fixed idea" Stirner means an idea (something you have created; NOTE this distinction: you may very well create the IDEA, but ultimately it is only YOUR OWN CREATION) that is "fixed" as to what you should live by.

The very concept of living according to an OLD idea that you thought up previously is ridiculous. You should live FOR YOURSELF, for nothing else: even if that "else" is an idea that a PREVIOUS VERSION of you (past you) has thought up.

NEVER let ANYTHING come between YOUR DESIRE and YOU ACTING TO GAIN THAT DESIRE. That is Stirner, and I cannot think of anything more significant that I have ever read in my life.

>>5126496
fuck fuck fuck

replace the first sentence with this:

Because living your life for the cause of something other than what you yourself THINK is bad: bad because you are no longer living your life for yourself AT THIS MOMENT (which is the only "yourself" that exists).

>>5126496
But wouldn't it be impossible to have "your own" ideas without the influence of "fixed ideas"

>Max stirner
>the only reason I know this guy if because of his shitty portraits.
>also has some edge-tier anarchist ideology I don't care about

I wonder how it must feel to literally be famous for only having shitty portraits.

>>5126506
give me your picture and I will make you a /lit/ meme

>>5126501
Once again
>>5125524

It doesn't matter if those ideas have influenced you.

>>5124070
both are shit, someone make a proper version already dont make me do it myself

>>5126506
>edgy-tier
nice buzzword faggot, how about you read it first then make up your mind.

>>5126585

>>5126600
better, but still not worthy of parodying the original

>>5126605
this is the best rec you'll ever get in your life:
go to a gun store
buy anything
shoot yourself in the fucking face.

>>5126607
>getting this upset over a /lit/ post

>>5126617
I'm just trying to get a retard to kill themselves.
Are you upset?

>>5126617
>I-I am not mad, y-you are!

>>5126628
meant for >>5126619, fuck me

>>5126634
You might think this only a /lit/ post, and if things go "well" enough you might think of it as such all the rest of your life, but truth be told no one cares of you (not even the vagina you came from). Please, for the rest of the world, (for a utilitarian purpose): kill yourself.

>>5126607
>Story of the Eye
y u so mad?

>>5126650
>>5126628
>>5126634

>samefag (3 posts!) saying I'M mad.

lol

>>5126645

>>5126659
I'm >>5126650 but not any of those two.
Also, Story of the Eye wasn't supposed to be there, I copied it's name from another thread and I actually don't know how it ended up there.

So, y u so mad?

>>5126676
not mad at all mate. how's that projection treating ya?

>>5126659
one was a correction for the misclick, >>5126650 was not even me. Pretty sure the person telling strangers online to kill themselves is the upset party involved

>>5126673
>lel funny picture omg i'm so rite!
come back when you have something substantial to say, lel

>>5126683
Pretty sure the faggot that needs to say who was and wasn't them is the insecure fucker.

Go on. I'm drunk as fuck and I've got all night.

>>5126685
>implying your volley of autistic rage urging me to kill myself and hurling petty insults is something substantial.

Way to end it with "lel" to prove my autism hypothesis.

>>5126696
lololol you need to kill yourself mate. that post you made only exemplifies my theory,

god forbid the world live with such beta faggotpieces of shit

>Watching In the Realms of the Unreal
>This line is given by a Vivian girl
"We will not shut up even if you point a gun at us all day"
>My sides

>>5126707
calm down kiddo, you are embarrassing yourself

>>5126732
nice samefag. you really think that'll exonerate you from your faggotry?

LOLOLOL

>>5126749
>>5126732
DON'T GET SUCH A BIG DICK

>>5123113
>As I see it it's an sort of an extension of Epicureanism

People like you should stay away from philosophy. - Nietzsche

>>5126749
>samefag
its called a dialogue

>>5126760
people that quote Nietzsche should stay away from philosophy

>>5126760
I have supped the fecid drippings of many homeless people. - Your mother

>>5120560
>world as your property

>property
>existing

>>5124276
hahaha

>>5123779
>Marx actually fucking nailed Stirner with his "petit bourgeois."
no, it's bullshit. Cf. Wolfgang Essbach 1988

I have a hard time sifting through all the shitposting, so if anyone has questions about Stirner, feel free to ask. pic related, it's my secondary literature on Stirner (excluding two ring binders of printed out articles).

>>5126853
>(excluding
actually, they are right there, nevermind.

>>5126853
I am very much into Cynicism (Greek), Taoism, Pyrrhonism, the aspect of suffering in Buddhism, and early Stoicism.

I understand Stirner, and acknowledge myself as a voluntary egoist.

BUT

This is difficult to reconcile with the convincing argument of Tao. Such being that we are only accumulated earth, flowing like everything else. Everything is happening the way it was always going/supposed to, and we ARE inherently the universe, basically convincing ourselves that we aren't that. That we're somehow more, or separate from it. Also can an egoist truly kill desire in the Buddhist sense?

How to be an egoist when you acknowledge yourself as everything within and without?

>>5126878
>Also can an egoist truly kill desire in the Buddhist sense?

Not exactly sure about 'killing desire', but I think 'forgetting yourself' goes in this direction. The best source for answers to interpretational problems is still Stirner's own response to his critics, names 'Stirner's Critics'.

> But when you forget yourself, do you then disappear? When you don’t think of yourself, have you utterly ceased to exist? When you look in your friend’s eyes or reflect upon the joy you would like to bring him, when you gaze up at the stars, meditate upon their laws or perhaps send them a greeting, which they bring to a lonely little room, when you lose yourself in the activity of the infusion of tiny animals under a microscope, when you rush to help someone in danger of burning or drowning without considering the danger you yourself are risking, then indeed you don’t “think” of yourself, you “forget yourself.” But do you exist only when you think of yourself, and do you dissipate when you forget yourself? Do you exist only through self-consciousness? Who doesn’t forget himself constantly, who doesn’t lose sight of himself thousands of times in an hour?

This self-forgetfulness, this losing of oneself, is for us only a mode of self-enjoyment, it is only the pleasure we take in our world, in our property, i.e. world-pleasure.

It is not in this self-forgetfulness, but in forgetting that the world is our world, that unselfishness, i.e., duped egoism, has its basis. You throw yourself down before a “higher,” absolute world and waste yourself. Unselfishness is not self-forgetfulness in the sense of no longer thinking of oneself and no longer being concerned with oneself, but in the other sense of forgetting that the world is “ours,” of forgetting that one is the center or owner of this world, that it is our property. Fear and timidity toward the world as a “higher” world is cowardly, “humble” egoism, egoism in its slavish form, which doesn’t dare to grumble, which secretly creeps about and “denies itself”; it is self-denial.

https://sites.google.com/site/vagabondtheorist/stirner/stirner-s-critics/stirner-s-critics-1

Now I think there is something in there also about 'being the world'. Basically, the world 'exists' in the meaningful way which means 'is perceivable and can be interacted with' only insofar as you perceive it and interact with it.

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by 'I am the world'. It would be disingenious for me to make a judgement about the relationship between Stirner and Taoism or Buddhism, because I know nothing about them.

>>5126897
>Now I think there is something in there also about 'being the world'. Basically, the world 'exists' in the meaningful way which means 'is perceivable and can be interacted with' only insofar as you perceive it and interact with it.

and here is the quote:

>Does Feuerbach live in a world other than his own? Does he perhaps live in Hess’s world, in Szeliga’s world, in Stirner’s world? Since Feuerbach lives in this world, since it surrounds him, isn’t it the world that is felt, seen, thought by him, i.e., in a Feuerbachian way? He doesn’t just live in the middle of it, but is himself its middle; he is the center of his world. And like Feuerbach, no one lives in any other world than his own, and like Feuerbach, everyone is the center of his own world. World is only what he himself is not, but what belongs to him, is in a relationship with him, exists for him.

>Everything turns around you; you are the center of the outer world and of the thought world. Your world extends as far as your capacity, and what you grasp is your own simply because you grasp it. You, the unique, are “the unique” only together with “your property.”

Just in case someone needs help: Imagine a chair that exists, but somehow in a place where we can never reach it. We will never see any light that has touched the chair, the chair will never interact with anything that we will interact with, etc. Can this chair be said to exist in a meaningful manner? It would make absolutely no difference if it did not exist, and we have no way of knowing whether it exists or not. The only meaningful use of 'existence' is one which refers to things that we can perceive and interact with.

>>5126897
>>5126903
I'm going to sleep. If the thread is alive in the morning, I'll give a real response.

>>5126340
False representing Stirner without having read him is even worse.

>2014
>Still worshiping Stirner
>Still talking about Spooks
>Still not moving on to Korzybski.

Is Stirner just tautology? It's not testable.

>>5127077
All philosophy is tautology.

>>5127077

muh science. faggot

>>5127019
Is this a reference to one of my posts reaching back something like a year, in which when asked what comes after Stirner, I would suggest PDP, Gestalt Therapy, and Korzybski? Or are we just thinking along the same lines?

>>5126994
NO. Passing on disinformation anonymously is the worst.

>>5127019
So where's the Korzybski threads trying to introduce him to us? Where's you teaser comment about what he's all about and how he's better or whatever?

>>5126897
>>5126903
Great posts. I thank you.

>>5127790
>NO. Passing on disinformation anonymously is the worst.
You're right. At least when people see the butterfly, they know the post is bullshit.

Daily reminder.

>>5127959
Daily reminder of what?

>>5127959
Big Boss wasn't an egoist, he was filled with "muh boss" spooks

>>5127959
>big boss
>implying ocelot doesn't exemplify an egoist 10x better

>>5127959
that's not a very good example

Why do you think there is a "you?"
The body and self are equally as impermanent and conceptual as the state, nature, spacetime, laws, the number three, and delicious cake.
It doesn't make sense to stop at the self when you are deconstructing reality dialectically. Why not start with deconstructing the self?

>>5130885
Read Stirner.

He doesn't define any "self" to speak of, only says that one ought to live for nothing else. He purposefully leaves it undefined since it's different for everyone ("The Ego" ought to have been translated as "The Unique"). A "self" doesn't exist per se, but you can't deny that You exist (and not You as in identity or consciousness, but You as in a living, breathing, flesh and blood thing), and denying You in favor of things that do not exist (even "self"!) is spooky.

>>5131227
I have. Und auf Deutsch.
This isn't some translation error that causes you to twist Stirner's actual meaning to your bastardized metaphysics. He is talking about the individual. The self.

You believe that I was talking about consciousness but I was actually talking about both that and the physical body. It is equally impermanent and conceptual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Not only that, the concept of self and body and corporeal notions attached to them arise from your social interaction with others, not your individual, isolated experiences. In fact, the demarcation itself is a conceptual one, and one that needs justification if you think everything outside of it does.

>>5131237
>You believe that I was talking about consciousness but I was actually talking about both that and the physical body. It is equally impermanent and conceptual.

What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.
— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics

Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."
— Max Stirner, Stirner's Critics

By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."
— Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own p. 40

... [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."
— Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own p. 300

Stirner is the zen master, bro.

>>5131251
>Stirner is the zen master, bro.
I laud your efforts, and you even posted some nice passages.

Now go back through those and see if they make any sense without referencing "one" (in German "man") or "I." This is not compatible with Buddhist non-self. It's impossible and non-sensical for "I" to be all, because there is no "I" to be thinking or believing. The "I" is an illusion, and the world is an illusion, but they aren't the same illusion. They aren't remotely equivalent. Not only that, Stirner would consider suffering as an overriding metaphysical truth to be empty and without merit.

>>5131260
I didn't mean to suggest he's actually wholly compatible with Buddhist anatman and sunyata and certainly not dukkha, just that his notion of self is lot more subtle and complex than you made it seem to be in that post.

I'm not the guy you were previously talking too by the way, just jumped in with this post.

>>5131272
Sure, I'm not saying Stirner is philistine or simple or that reading him is without merit.

However, the problem remains no matter how subtle or intricate you take Stirner's notion of self to be. It rests on the idea of demarcation, but that demarcation is impossible without there being a process that led to that notion of the self. Just as easily as Stirner takes his self to be the end of a dialectical process, it could just have easily been the aim of deconstruction, and we would have been left with something more akin to Buddhism or Hegelian idealism or perhaps Marxism.

>>5131280
My problem with Stirner is also what remains rather than what he does away with, since ultimately any distinction between self and other in any way is no less arbitrary and conceptual than distinctions between right and wrong for example. The proper conclusion would be a complete sort of quietist non-dualism, I guess, without new attempts to construct a system.

>>5130885
>the number three, and delicious cake
if you think these are equally conceptual, you don't understand the difference between abstract and concrete, the universal and the particular, etc. The same with 'me', I'm a specific 'body'/'person', but not just anyone, but the one unique person through whom the ('my', but really all that exists in a meaningful way) experience of the world has to be actuated in order to exist as experience.

>>5131643
>existence precedes essence

>>5131643
What are the differences between the abstract and concrete?
The universal and the particular?

>>5131280
>It rests on the idea of demarcation, but that demarcation is impossible without there being a process that led to that notion of the self.

No, it doesn't. It's true that the demarcation of the individual wasn't an issue in Young Hegelian discussions (and it shouldn't be, because it's a moot point). The link you posted above nicely illustrates how useless most arguments along these lines are: Measuring the age of the body by the age of the cells instead of the age of the organism is just as arbitrary, but more retarded, because unlike the age of the cells, the age of the organism has socio-cultural relevance. You might as well define your age as the age of the atoms in your body, but that has no 'practical' value. Now back to the demarcations:

> Everything turns around you; you are the center of the outer world and of the thought world. Your world extends as far as your capacity, and what you grasp is your own simply because you grasp it. You, the unique, are “the unique” only together with “your property.”

There is in fact no such demarcation, as the idea that the 'unique' is some solipsist who exists outside of the world. In this way, the unique might be akin to a 'reality tunnel' (might be misusing the term here, I don't know Leary's actual definition, but I think it nicely captures how you (as consciousness/perceiving/experiencing) are merely the lens through which the world passes). Almost no attention has been paid to the actual meaning of the title 'The Unique and Its Own'. The 'possession', 'its own', does not mean some petty bourgeois fixation on material property, but the realization that the 'self' is not an identity, but 'the world as perception', or 'the self as relation to the world'. I hope this makes some sense, I don't like my own phrasing too much.

So, to summarize: Stirner's thought is not countered through a critique of demarcation, because it rests not on demarcation but on selection (me, not 'you' or 'us'), and more importantly, on the priorization of experience over abstraction:

'I' experience 'the world' is only the way we say it because those are terms people understand. What matters is the experience, not the demarcation of who experiences what (the selection is the simple observation that every experience available as to pass through 'me'. Experiences of others are purely hypothetical (other minds problem)).

>>5131661
I like how you used a screencap from that movie that Zizek uses to demonstrate critique of ideology in his new movie (Zizek is good when he is being blunt and references pop culture. The more theoretical he tries to be, the worse it gets, because he doesn't actually make technical arguments, he just points out vague parallels between things and insinuates significance).

>>5123078
i think you are alright, but that quirky thing sure is exhausting

>>5131694
How can you say you aren't assuming the existence of a self when you are making the argument that there is some relationship between this self and not-self? How are you talking about a "selection" without making a distinction first?
The idea of the self is an arbitrary one, and I can provide examples of multiple schools of thought where this is discarded. It is something you assume, and you take the assumption for granted.
The idea of experience as such is an abstraction. You simply can't make sense of your sense data without abstraction, can you? Part of that abstraction is the self. My point is that Stirner claims there is some self that is beyond abstraction. This simply isn't so. Data without interpretation has no meaning.

>>5131749
>The idea of experience as such is an abstraction. You simply can't make sense of your sense data without abstraction, can you? Part of that abstraction is the self. My point is that Stirner claims there is some self that is beyond abstraction. This simply isn't so. Data without interpretation has no meaning.

I'm not sure where you get 'data' from. Abstraction is a process of linguaform thought (at least in this case). Experience, the way 'I' have it and the way we presume animals have it, too, involves pattern recognition, etc. The concept of experience is abstract, the experience itself isn't (cf. qualia). What we experience is prior to a rational, or indeed linguaform distinction between self and not self. But if we describe the occurrence of this experience in the only terminology we have, we can locate it in one specific person among all the persons we perceive (myself, the first-person-perspective). Whether or not persons as such are a 'correct' description doesn't actually matter for the process of selection and for the priorization of experience.

>>5131707
>he just points out vague parallels between things and insinuates significance
what else is left anymore. philosophy is well-trodden

>>5131781
No, the pattern recognition is not a part of the sense data. It is part of the interpretation of the sense data. The whole of the sense of self, under a materialist view, and indeed one of the more popular views in philosophy of mind, is that it arises as a combination of sense data being combined AND interpreted by the brain.
Sense data, experiencing the world, is not the thoughts and other extraneous activities that occur after the sense data is interpreted. Pure experience is only sense data. The pattern recognition, isomorphism, etc. is all IMPOSED and not an aspect of the sense data received. It is an abstraction of the data. Along with language. Along with the notion of selfhood. Along with any thought which occurs. Data is meaningless until it is interpreted; meaning that sense data (experience alone) is not a source of primacy for the abstraction of self.

>>5131745
Sorry. But don't anons exhaust you at times too?

>>5131809
>Pure experience is only sense data.
Nope. Even in the eye socket, the signals from the eyes are processed in terms of pattern recognition. You are trying to draw a line at a point where it makes zero sense. Pattern recognition, or 'interpretation of data', is what happens in a bee's neural system, as well. It's just not interpretation in the sense of deliberate linguaform thought. And this is also where a meaningful line can be drawn: Experience as the sub-symbolic.

>>5131809
>the more popular views in philosophy of mind
The more popular views aren't always the most sensible. Philosophy of mind is full of projection, people who build there self-image around rational, symbolic thought and assume that the basis of human cognition must be shaped this way too, that what they deem most valuable must also be the foundation of everything. Just look at PDP vs. PSS, the idea that rule based symbole processing is what underlies the human mind is exactly parallel to the idea that God is an old man with a beard sitting in a cloud. (I'm going off on a tangent here, please indicate if you want to proceed further into the ideology of cognitive science)

The pattern recognition, isomorphism, etc. is all IMPOSED and not an aspect of the sense data received. It is an abstraction of the data. Along with language. Along with the notion of selfhood. Along with any thought which occurs.

Your 'along with' is a distortion insofar as linguistic thought is at the opposite end of the spectrum of brain activity as basic pattern recognition is. You should check out Connectionism/ Parallel Processing.

>>5131929
>there
AHHHHHHHHHH crap. посыпать голову пеплом

>>5131816
the anons you are probably referring to are beyond saving, but your golly gee attitude is amendable, and i think you would better for having let it go

>>5131947
I'm a positive person and try to help some of the sad-sacks become more happy, but beyond that I don't know what you mean exactly by "golly gee"

>>5131929
Experience IS sub-symbolic. This is exactly the point. The sense of self doesn't just arise as a collection of uninterpreted sense data. Otherwise, we could just as easily call your phone's camera data conscious.
Pattern recognition does NOT occur in the eye socket. If you take this to be the case, we are talking about two entirely different things. See the distinction between data and information. Sure, bees can interpret data structurally differently, that's entirely irrelevant. Even if you were able to establish that patterns are recognized somewhere in your extraneous nerves, like in your little toe, that would end up being entirely irrelevant to what I'm trying to impart.

I'm definitely not implying that simply because this is a common view in philosophy of mind that it is correct. In fact, I would hazard to guess the opposite is true. It is also the predominant assumption behind cognitivism in psychology, and addresses many of the problems in philosophy of mind regarding materialism more elegantly than other conceptions.

I'm not really sure why you think connectionism has anything to do with the distinction between input data and how it is interpreted.

>>5131951
>try to help some of the sad-sacks become more happy
then I will tell you, your ingratiating personality has the opposite effect. life is not a stage nor /lit/ a spotlight

>>5131973
I'll have to look up what you were actually arguing in the beginning, but one of my points is that the distinction between 'input data' and 'information' is invalid. Already when it leaves the eye socket, the sensory data has been pre-processed, recoginizing for example diagonal lines. This is what I call 'pattern recognition', although you may associate recognition with a reflecting agent, which obviously restricts it to the level of linguaform thought. So unless you are arguing that there is a way it feels for the eye to be (apart from the rest of the body), it does not make any sense to argue that

a) sensory data is experience and
b) sensory data is completely uninterpreted (some half-mythical state of original purity, I asssume, since already the way our sensory organs function has been shaped by their functional evolution, basically making every way in which they perform decidedly non-neutral. It is important here that this lack of neutrality does not imply a purpose of any kind. As with the 'self' above, we are using what we are aware of as being inaccurate terminology, simply because we have no better way of talking about it. So teleonomy, no teleology).

>>5131951
wow this is what butterfly was trying to do the whole time and here i was just insulting her better go kill myself

>>5132070
Nice try butterfly

>>5132059
Yes of course the data is passed along to the rest of your nervous system. What I'm saying is there is no concept of direction (diagonal) or space (line) or other things without the combination of that with other sense data like equilibrium and proprioception. It simply doesn't make sense to talk about pattern recognition without there being cognition which happens AFTER the data is received and once it starts being interpreted.

I'm saying that a) and here is my actual b)
b) Uninterpreted sensory data alone does not account for sentience, consciousness, or cognition
and that
c) Information, including mental representation, the product of interpreting that data, does.

>>5131973
I think our main problem here is that you use abstraction to denote any sort of data processing, even on the most basic neural levels, whereas Stirner uses abstractions only for certain movements of thought, that concepts which are derived from particular references but divorced from them. When such an abstraction is valued above the concrete particulars it derives from and in fact used as an ideal to judge (and subjugate) the particulars, you get a spook. Personal experience might be an abstraction according to your use of the term, but not Stirner's.

>>5132130
Yes, without interpretation, data is just data. The is just is. No distinctions, no qualifications, no quantifications, the eternal present. The distinction of the sensing thing is arbitrary.

>>5132144
no one is denying that, but it also doesn't have anything to do with Stirner, so what are you getting at?

>>5132188
Read back through all the posts, and you might get a hint. Stirner is not justified in claiming primacy of the agent. Not by the dialectical method and materialist frameworks he works from.

>>5132112
>It simply doesn't make sense to talk about pattern recognition without there being cognition which happens AFTER the data is received and once it starts being interpreted.

Well, I accept that you use pattern recognition in a different way, but the way you phrase it sounds like the data is somehow neutral, pristine, or unmodified at the point where conscious thought gets to access it, which is wrong. (and still has nothing to do with Stirner as such)

>>5132070
kek

>>5132205
>Stirner is not justified in claiming primacy of the agent. Not by the dialectical method and materialist frameworks he works from.

He doesn't work from these frameworks (whatever precisely they are supposed to be). He rejects Hegel completely, he rejects all development of concepts, so it makes 0 sense to say that he is using dialectics. 'Materialism' at that point meant Feuerbach, whom Stirner rejects as well. Can you clarify what you mean?

That said, Stirner is pretty justified to argue the primacy of the agent in the framework of his analysis, since he claims that the agent is only holding back himself in order to conform to artificial, secondary ideals and constraints. The primacy of the agent viz a viz heteronomous ideals is relatively obvious both phylo- and ontogenetically.

>>5132205
>Read back through all the posts, and you might get a hint.
I actually did that. I'm sorry, but they just aren't that clear.

>>5132244
Yeah, it's not an all-or-nothing sort of thing.
Data doesn't have to be "pristine" in order not to be information.

Consider cases where data cannot be interpreted. It is meaningless. Only when data is interpreted is it information. Consider the case of Wernicke's aphasia. You get data, but are unable to turn it into information because of structural damage to the brain. The same sort of sensory data is being transmitted to the same areas of the brain, but it is meaningless, because it can't be interpreted.

Conscious thought doesn't get access to this data, it ARISES from the interpretation of the data. Consciousness is probably best described as a synthesis and interpretation of all the sense data together.

>>5132277
He doesn't reject Hegel completely. Read both. He attempts to reverse the dialectical progression of society.

The agent isn't being held back, because the agent is
a) an illusory concept on equal footing with class or the state
b) these artifices are as naturally occurring as the self, there is no legitimate claim to natural/artificial demarcation

If the self is defined bodily, then it is materialistic. If it isn't, it is idealistic, and runs into even worse issues.

>>5132283
For the any assertions about self being somehow more "real" or "concrete" than these other ideals, the self must not itself not be an ideal.

>>5132316
must not itself be an ideal*

>>5132316
>For the any assertions about self being somehow more "real" or "concrete" than these other ideals, the self must not itself not be an ideal.

And it's not. The 'unique' is not a concept, it is a term which is pure reference devoid of conceptual content. It is neither entirely bodily nor entirely mental, it is the interface of both, or rather the point from which both spaces are opened up (like an umbrella). Just a disclaimer: I'm starting to drink now, so my arguments won't get better.

>Stirner names the unique and says at the same time that “Names don't name it.” He utters a name when he names the unique, and adds that the unique is only a name. So he thinks something other than what he says, just as, for example, when someone calls you Ludwig, he isn't thinking of a generic Ludwig, but of you, for whom he has no word.

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is neither a word, nor a thought, nor a concept. What he says is not the meaning, and what he means cannot be said.

>>5132316
Stirner is not talking about a concept of an agent, he is talking about actually existing humans as agents. The experience of agent-coherence is probably pre-linguistic, too. To be sure, it's not anywhere near as abstract as fucking class or state...

>>5132375
So it is a non-referring term? Or are you likening it to Descartes' pituitary gland?

>>5132453
Existing humans are a categorization, a demarcation. There is no "purely existing basis" beyond conception. Sure, there might be the material world, but things in the material world aren't demarcated, categorized, quantified, or qualified with conceptualization. All of these are ideals. In Kantian terms, you could say that there is no access to the human-in-itself without the filter of mental representation.

>>5132559
>Descartes' pituitary gland
I'm pretty sure it's the pineal gland.

>>5132559
>All of these are ideals.
err, no. An ideal is not just an abstraction, but an abstraction from particulars which is used as a goal against which the particulars are measured. According to your perspective, even particulars are abstracts. You are correct in asserting that there are no absolute 'givens', but you are incorrect in trying to derive from this the point that all things we perceive or refer to or posit as concepts are equally abstract. It just does not follow. The process by which certain objects are 'created' out of data which itself does not have th eform of an object is RADICALLY different on the level of the sub-symbolic than the process that creates concepts such as class or the state from other concepts. There is really very little they have in common and you don't have an actual argument here.

>>5132559
thanks for the discussion.your radical position forced me to think trough my views.

Out of all the great thinkers, why even bother with Stirner, whose philosophy is essentially what most teenagers come up with, its own brand of Randtardianism.

>>5132776
he is right, is why

>>5132799
So most angsty teenagers have a better grasp on the world and reality than the greatest intellectuals, moral leaders. artists, and scientists in human history?

>>5132825
⇒appeal to authority

>>5132835
When the appeal is to people who study the thing in question seriously,it's perfectly rational.

Try again kiddo.

>>5132838
>>5132825
actual names. who is better than jcs?

>>5132838
⇒implying the qualifications of philosophers to talk about a subjective "muh feelings" topic are objectively quantifiable

>>5132849
I'll keep it simple, let's go with a dude like Gandhi. A man who changed world history because he cared about more than his own ego and happiness.

>>5132877
Why is "changing world history" a desirable goal? I don't give a shit about world history.

>>5132877
why would I read anything by Gandhi? Maybe he was good at liberating India, that's hardly a relevant activity for me.

>>5132877
Saddam Hussein changed world history too and he didn't care about philosophy at all. Your argument is invalid.

>>5132891
>>5132899

Becuase humans are fundamentally social animals, and since we can agree that our personal suffering is bad, it stands to reason so is everyone else's.

Thus a person who helps make the world a world with much less suffering has done the world a lot of good, versus someone who only cared about themelves was just limited and selfish.

Learning to care about other humans, conpassion, altruism are the bedrock of a world thay makes progress rather than stagnates and falls apart. The question is, is doing good and making the world better good? Or is someone who jerks off all day equally as good as Gandhi.

Most people who spend their lives analyzing such issues would say it's fairly obvious that one is better than the other.

So the next question is, do you want to be better or not?

>>5132914
Do you realize that you're coming across as a totally problematic bigot right now?

>>5132914
>Becuase humans are fundamentally social animals, and since we can agree that our personal suffering is bad, it stands to reason so is everyone else's.

There's a whole lot of non sequitur going on there.

>>5132919
No idea what you mean here.

>>5132914
>a world thay makes progress rather than stagnates and falls apart
Do you know who wanted to create progress in the world? Hitler, Stalin, etc.

>>5132927
So? Are you implying all the other good people who vied for progress were also bad?

This is a fallacy you're making.

>>5132914
⇒and since we can agree that our personal suffering is bad, it stands to reason so is everyone else's.
Lol nope. My own suffering is bad. Other people's suffering sexually arouses me.

⇒versus someone who only cared about themelves was just limited and selfish.
Cry harder. I couldn't care less.

⇒Learning to care about other humans, conpassion, altruism are the bedrock of a world thay makes progress
Science makes progress. An unrealistic "muh feelings" utopia is as anti-progressive as it can be.

⇒Most people who spend their lives analyzing such issues would say it's fairly obvious that one is better than the other.
Most people talking about ethics are talking out of their ass and mistake their emotion based value judgements for facts.

⇒So the next question is, do you want to be better or not?
Of course. I want to be the Übermensch.

>>5132947
Your position is contradictory. You believe yourself and your suffering to matter, whereas others suffering is a means to your pleasure.

Sociopath essentially. Now try living in a place without rule of law, where you'll quickly realize people who share your own ideology would torture you for fun.

Your ideas are those of a savage.

>>5132935
>Are you implying all the other good people who vied for progress were also bad?
No, I'm not.

>>5132955
>Now try living in a place without rule of law
Why would they do that?

>>5132955
There is nothing self-contradictory in my position. Yes, I'm a sociopath and "homo homini lupus" is nothing new. But please keep being a whiny pseudo-altruistic weakling. It only makes you easily manipulable.

>>5132970
Applying their principles leads to such >>5132971
Well go ahead then, manipulate away.

>>5132877
I can want to be like ghandi and still be a nihilist. I would only believe it is the way things are but still follow other ethical veins

>yfw you realized Stirner was right

>>5132045
>life is not a stage nor /lit/ a spotlight
And I am not an actor.

...But someone's playing me again ITT
>>5132776
>Etc.
>>5132835
>Etc.

Gandhi was an individualist who used others for a nationalist agenda. For good or bad India tore away from imperialist England, right or wrong is a matter of opinion. I'm all for whatever stops suffering. But Gandhi as an example of altruism doesn't fully work since the end results re what *he* wanted, and I don't care how impoverished he was or how long his fasting was or even that an assassin got him. Others suffered trying to achieve that goal. I'm not trying to a judgmental ass here, but there's a *balance* to the communal and the individualist, the altruist and the *egotist.*

I don't know who this butterfly impostor is, but Arrow⇒ is clearly an act ;)
And you can't be the Übermensch.

I am the Übermensch

>>5133552
Of course there is balance. Sometimes however it's the radicals like Gandhi who further society, and part of the problen witg today's society is to many people are egoistic and think only of themselves.

We have plenty of assholes and angsty teenagers, we need more Gandhis, trouble is we tend to kill people like him, and reward the egoists.

>>5133843
But no. Gandhi (as a catalyst only) made this big advancement with his ego, his big want/need, it was his pleasure to be this catalyst.

>and reward the egoists.
Egotists.
There isn't balance though. The world's problems are caused from a terrible imbalance.
People misinterpreting Stirner for Rand is a concern... Have you ever wondered why so many red state conservative (You in the US?) are almost always poor white trash (Where I came from) who never stand up for themselves?
I don't want an army of sociopaths but a proactive world of people doing what needs to be done for the betterment of everyone else, because the reality of the world is communal. It all looks contradictory but, again, it's about balance.

>>5133921
What mostly agree about what ought to happen. I would disagree with you on Gandhi being motivated by his want or feels. The real motivation is others and their lives, the fact that he feels good is an added bonus, I think Hume goes into this.

They don't stand up for a number of reasons, one of which is ideology, the american dream, and people essentially convincing them of falsehoods.

>>5134048
We*

>>5134048
>I would disagree with you on Gandhi being motivated by his want or feels. The real motivation is others and their lives
Right, HE wanted his people free form colonialism.

>They don't stand up for a number of reasons, one of which is ideology, the american dream, and people essentially convincing them of falsehoods.
Plenty of Indians probably wanted the British to stay too.

And how about Syria, where we seem to have to choose between Assad or Muslim extremists running the country.

Why you still posting with my damn name?

>>5133843
>arguing against Stirner with spook-logic
I knew you were dumb Butterfly, but I didn't think you were that dumb.

Tell me: why should I work towards bettering "the world" (which only exists as a concept, by the way) when "the world" as you yourself said kills men like Gandhi?

>>5134079
Becuase it's part of reaching your potential as a human being. There's a version of you who is an angsty selfish teen, there's another who make a positive difference and brings humanity further than it was before.

Which self you want to be is up to you, but it's obvious which is better.

>>5134073
I like how leftists use nationalistic terms like "his people" unironically when referring to third worlders.

>>5134079
That's the not-« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » who's been debating with Arrow

>Tell me: why should I work towards bettering "the world" (which only exists as a concept, by the way)
Because it's nice. I suppose a Stirnerist can do some pretty evil shit, that is, counter to the community's well being, but there will be whole community to contend with. Being a Stirnerist doesn't mean you'll respect some sociopath wanting to get his kicks.

>>5134073
Justice demanded freedom from colonialism. He merely helped establish justice.

Don't follow your Syria point, I assume you mean to show that there were only bad outcomes, but it amounts to a false dichotomy.

As for your name, becuase I want to, many here dislike you so I like to post and get responses, maybe start a weird kind of phenomenon where so many people post with your name no one will which is the real one.

>>5134110
I was describing what made Gandhi tick. Evola Kid?

>>5134109
Haha. Who decided for me what my "potential as a human being" was? If that's the case then I will reject that potential and become unhuman - rather, TRULY human.

>>5134289
If you want to be pathetic then this is the end of our association.

If you want to become wise, just, useful, and good we can dialog about what that might mean.

>>5134124
>>5134331
You and I both are against colonialism, and slavery for another. But there was a time when it was just normal, christians supported slavery, everybody. It was The Law. "establish justice" We only see it as progressive in hindsight.

>maybe start a weird kind of phenomenon where so many people post with your name no one will which is the real one.
That has never worked in the past and it will never work.

>>5134331
>wise, just, useful, and good
For what and why? What is the logic?

You're haunted by spooks man. Our association never began. To call me pathetic as you grovel before your imaginary idols, imagine that!

>>5120560
?le doodle thrad xD